The process would be similar to checking embryos for conditions like Down's syndrome

Imagine being able to design a human the way we use computer software to design every day items like clothing or furniture. University of Oxford Professor Julian Savulescu recently said that parents should have the choice to do such a thing, allowing them to create the kind of child they desire rather than leaving it to chance.

According to Savulescu, the manipulation of genetics has evolved over the years and has already proven to be beneficial to those who are expecting. For instance, parents can use tests, which focus on particular genes in embryos, to see if their child will have certain conditions like Down's syndrome.

While this type of testing is not seen as an issue, Savulescu said the testing of an embryo's genes to see what kind of personality flaws it could have has raised concern amongst the public -- and he believes it shouldn't.

"Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to to select ethically better children," said Savulescu. "They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others. If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring -- rather than consigning them to the natural lottery -- then we should."

Savulescu's ideas have been compared to those of the Nazis, who adopted the eugenics movements during World War II. However, Savulescu argues that this is different because parents can choose to participate or not. They don't have to genetically alter their children, but they should be able to choose to, he said.

"Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now," said Savulescu. "Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance."

Savulescu posed this argument in a recent article in Reader's Digest.

What do you think? Could eliminating potential character flaws in embryos create a perfect human race, or could there be serious, unseen implications with having so much power over this thing called life?

Look you're full of shit, give it up. This thing exists, and it's going to take more than your opinion to convince me.

quote: Many types of autism, also can be verified chemically therefore it has a strong basis to start with.

Uhh people said the same thing about autism not so long ago. How ironic you use this as an example, because the same arguments you're using now were used to say autism was "made up" too.

quote: Physiology and Neuroscience are hard sciences, they can not only make a claim they can back it up with hard science. Perhaps the day will arrive when ADHD and/or Aspergers has some hard evidence behind it.

Volkow's team collected detailed images of participants' brains with positron emission tomography, or PET, scans after injecting them with a radioactive chemical that binds to dopamine receptors and transporters, which take up and recycle dopamine as it moves between neurons. The imaging showed that, in people with ADHD, the receptors and transporters are significantly less abundant in mid-brain structures composing the so-called reward pathway, which is involved in associating stimuli with pleasurable expectations.

quote: Look you're full of shit, give it up. This thing exists, and it's going to take more than your opinion to convince me.

I'm not here to convince you, that would be like trying to convince Al Gore that global warming is complete bullshit. I'm here to provide the hard criticism that so many others in the world are afraid of because they don't want to be labeled as an unsympathetic monster for "insert your favorite ailment here". I'm also going to point out that you have offered ZERO supporting evidence to Aspergers. You keep posting ADHD related material down her, which is a completely different thread, put it there and stop trying to cross the issues and muddy the waters.

The link you provided is one I'm familiar with. One study isn't going to give you the sympathy for your "condition" that you so eagerly want. But since you did provide the link perhaps you should scroll down just a bit.

quote: The mainstream scientific consensus is that, as with other mental illnesses, there's no blood test or brain scan that proves an individual has ADHD. The disorder instead is diagnosed via a checklist of troublesome behaviors, including impulsivity, daydreaming and forgetfulness. What makes the diagnosis particularly difficult, Hinshaw said, is that those behaviors all fall within the normal range of human behavior. People with ADHD are simply farther out on the spectrum, and, often, enough so as to wind up in constant trouble. In addition, symptoms typical of ADHD can also stem from other illnesses or injuries. Swanson said scientists are probably years away from a biological test for the disorder, though the new study is a step in that direction.

This goes back to my original ADHD claim (scroll up) that you bitched and cried about, which is that it is overdiagnosed and most people don't have it. I even added that there is no way to test for it other than a subjective checklist of normal shit. By your own supporting link you justified my entire point. You simply forgot the crux of the issue being debated because you are so hell bent on earing sympathy for your "condition". The only troll here is you, go back to your cave and knock off this silly crusade you are on.